With Regard to Genetically-Modified Foods...

[Bill Mattocks]

.
That's where you find the good stuff, Bill.

I just didn't see the value in getting into a Bush or Obama discourse as part of a discussion on genetically-modified foods.

Crimes against humanity. The precedent was set by the Nuremberg trials and the Hague. Things can be legal and still can be wrong. Imagine if we applied that standard to corporations and made it retroactive.

First, 'crimes against humanity' were applied to members of a government, not members of a corporation. Second, I agree that things can be legal and still be 'wrong' in the moral sense, but we don't prosecute people for doing things that are legal but immoral. Third, I shiver to think of people or corporations being prosecuted for crimes that haven't been invented yet and apply it to them retroactively. You may not be aware that the US Constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws, which is what you're advocating here.

Imagine; you drive 25 mph in a 25 mph zone, but the government changes the law to 20 mph and makes it retroactive; you get a ticket for your past crimes, even though they were not crimes then. Make sense?

I agree, people are responsible for getting screwed. They need to stand up and stop it. And the people who make decisions to do something terrible to their fellow man, like kill them, give them diseases, steal their property, lie to them about risks, etc, need to be held accountable.

If it's a crime, yes. Killing, giving others diseases, and even lying about risks may or may not be crimes. If it is a crime, then prosecute. If it is not, then change the law or drop it. You seem to be continuing to insist on criminal prosecution for things that are not illegal.

As long as we persist with the idea that corporations only responsible for generating profits for the shareholders, we are going to continue to see abuses.

That's free enterprise. I suggest you get used to it.

These people are responsible for society and for the damage that they do.

No, they are not. They are responsible to obey the law. If the law lets them do it, and it maximized their profits, they're going to do it.

No matter what kind of laws that they pass, no matter how they slice it to rationalize, they are responsible for the pain and suffering that they cause.

Depends on if you mean responsible in a civil, criminal, or moral way. I would agree with the last, less so with the first two, depending on the issue.

It's this higher standard of behavior that people have to strive for before we really get any kind of social action.

Can't legislate the content of people's hearts. Only their actions.

MLK strove after a higher standard in order to achieve some measure of equality for African Americans in our country. It was legal for our country to do that stuff to a particular group of citizens and it was wrong.

Yes. So we fixed it.

See what I mean?

Nope. I see someone who wants people to change, and business to stop being business. People won't change, business won't stop doing what it does. Stop being an idealist and accept that regulation and laws, along with enforcement, are what constrain behavior. You can never stop a person from being a racist, for example; you might be able to stop them, to some degree, from behaving in a bigoted fashion. You can never change free enterprise from focusing on profit to focusing on the good of humanity; it won't happen, it can't happen. You can regulate business and enforce community standards of morality.

You agree with me that government regulation is key; but you keep insisting that 'people need to' behave this way or that corporations 'need to' behave that way. They won't. Ever. You can't make them behave or believe a certain way that is contrary to their nature; except by laws, regulations, and enforcement.

In a free society, anything not prohibited is permitted. Period. And I'm OK with that. The onus is on society to restrict what it does not want people to do, not on people to plead for the right to do what they want to do.

 

[Makalakumu]

Bill, I think we have two fundamentally different ways of looking at this, but we essentially arrive at the same conclusion. People need to wake up and use the institutions we have in place and put an end to abuses heaped on us by the corporations.

Regarding the crimes against humanity bit, you stated that anything that is not prohibited is essentially permitted. I understand where you are coming from, but as with most ideas, it is not pure and exceptions crop up whenever we start to think so. Genocide can be "legal" and people should still be held accountable for it. Theft of trillions from the public could be legal in a country, and people should still be held accountable for it. Making a product that kills people, makes them sick, and destroys the natural environment, could be legal in a country and people should still be held accountable for it.

I understand that the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws and I understand that this was done to prevent tyranny. Think of the kind of people that could be let off the hook if this were to be applied universally. The US has backed holding people accountable in the past for doing some pretty legal and atrocious things. I think we should make exceptions.

Other then that, we are in total agreement. The wheels of our institutions need to be put into motion be an informed public before any action can be done. I also think that it is perfectly reasonable to hold people accountable for the damage they have done ex post facto, in this case.

 

[Makalakumu]

One more quick point.

We are reaching a point in history where our country has merged with corrupt corporate interests and things that would formally have been illegal, are now becoming legal. Financial regulations that protected the public from theft and fraud are being lifted. Food and Drugs that clearly are harmful to the public and the environment are being approved. This is a new thing for Americans, but, historically, this happens when societies are corrupted and are falling into dissolution.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think stepping back and looking at the standards we once held and holding people accountable to those traditional values may be step in the direction of turning things around. Our society cannot persist with the idea that anything that is legal is permissible, or the people in power will simply make everything permissible.

Our country has paid reparations to Native Americans and Japanese internees. We've sued major corporations for polluting and for damaging people's health in the past, even though it might have been legal. There is precedent and I think it's a good precedent. People shouldn't think that they can just pay someone off change the law or ram something through and get it approved even knowing its dangers, and get away with it.